Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 1977 - Department of Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY 1996

(House Floor)
(Sponsors: Livingston (R) Louisiana; Regula (R) Ohio)

This Statement of Administration Policy provides the Administration's views on H.R. 1977, the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY 1996, as approved in conference on October 31, 1995. Your consideration of the Administration's views would be appreciated.

In an October 19, 1995, letter to the conferees, the Administration identified the most troublesome provisions in the original conference report with the goal of arriving at a bill that serves specific, vital interests and that could be signed by the President.

Regrettably, the second conference report did not address the significant funding shortfalls and objectionable legislative riders. If the bill, as approved by the second conference, were presented to the President, he would veto it. The issues that were identified in the October 19th letter arm still serious problems and arm described below.

Funding Issues

The second conference did nothing to restore funds in the areas that the Administration identified am significantly underfunded. These are the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Department of Energy's (DOE'S) energy conservation programs.

The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) budget was increased in the first conference $86 million above the Senate level. However, there was no additional increase provided in the second conference. That would still leave the program $136 million short of the House mark and $184 million below the FY 1995 enacted level. The most significant effect of this action remains the crippling reductions targeted at tribal priority allocation programs, which support essential tribal government, law enforcement, housing improvement, general assistance, Indian child welfare, adult vocational training, road maintenance, and other reservation programs. The Administration's view is that funding must be substantially restored for these programs.

DOE's energy conservation programs are still funded at a net level of $536 million. There has been no increase from the first conference level. This is $187 million, or 26 percent, below the net FY 1995 enacted level of $723 million, and 38 percent below the President's request. Funding for these programs must be restored significantly in order to reach acceptable levels.

In addition to the language issues addressed below, the President will not sign an Interior appropriations bill unless funding for these programs is significantly restored without harming other high-priority programs or unless there is an overall agreement between the Congress and the Administration on budget priorities that addresses the Administration's fundamental concerns about spending priorities both in this bill and elsewhere.

Language Issues

The conference committee has again chosen to continue to include numerous legislative riders in the bill that the Administration finds seriously objectionable. The riders that were cited in the October 19th letter have not been significantly improved in the second conference. These provisions are so seriously flawed that the Administration sees no way to remedy them, short of removing them altogether. The most serious problems are:

• a mining provision that still does not adequately protect the public interest. Unlike the language in the FY 1995 Act, the moratorium contained in the second conference report on new patents would be revoked if minimal provisions relating to patenting (but not comprehensive mining reform) are enacted into law through the budget reconciliation process, or simply it the House and Senate approve an agreement in identical form on patenting, royalties, and reclamation of mining claims. The latter provision raises a serious constitutional problem: the provision would be invalid under the Chadha decision if construed to require anything less than enactment. The moratorium language in the FY 1995 Act must be restored;
  
  
• the Tongass (Alaska) forest management provisions that are unchanged from the first conference. These still include sufficiency language and would dictate the use of a 1992 forest plan that preempts our use of the most recent scientific information;
  
  
• the Interior Columbia River Basin provision that is also unchanged from the first conference. It would terminate comprehensive planning for the management of these public lands by prohibiting the publication of the final Environmental Impact statement or Record of Decision and limiting the contents to exclude information on fisheries and watersheds. The provision would risk a return to legal gridlock on timber harvesting, grazing, mining, and other economically desirable activities;
  
  
• retention of bill language that provides only $1 for National Park Service (NPS) operation of the Mojave National Preserve and provides for land within the preserve to be managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Report language adopted by the second conference calling for more studies by the Park Service and disclaiming an intention to repeal portions of the landmark 1994 California Desert Protection Act does not change the fact that the Preserve would be starved of funding, and the purposes of the California Desert Act would be undercut; and
  
  
• no change in language from the first conference in a rider to make permanent the protocol for identification of marbled murrelet nests that was included in the FY 1995 rescission bill, thereby eliminating normal flexibility to use new scientific information as it develops.

In addition, the Administration has previously expressed concern about other legislative riders, including the moratorium on future listings under the Endangered Species Act, the Department of Energy efficiency standards one-year moratorium, the 90-day moratorium on grazing regulation implementation, and the provision affecting the Lummi Tribe and seven other self- governance tribes in Washington State. An additional funding issue concerns the severe cuts (nearly 40 percent) to the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH). These significantly reduced funding levels would jeopardize NEA's and REE's ability to continue to provide important cultural, educational, and artistic programs for communities across America.